@Terrion666: The first track you linked is a riffless noisy something. Second one sounds more metallic, but I'm not convinced. It would depend on which songs the band's valid release(s) feature (only those two splits so far?), so at this point we'd need comprehensive access to all the band's released music.

These tracks are from an unreleased demo. I don't have physically the splits or youtube samplers. If I would find it later I'll put on the board to prove enough metal

Have you read the rules? If it is unreleased, it is not considered valid. Please, just link us to the music existing in valid, released albums/demos/EPs. If you happen to find more unreleased tracks, then don't bother posting them here.

Have you read the rules? If it is unreleased, it is not considered valid. Please, just link us to the music existing in valid, released albums/demos/EPs. If you happen to find more unreleased tracks, then don't bother posting them here.

I was about to add the German band Love Like Blood, but apparently, they've been previously rejected and blacklisted. Their early stuff was gothic rock, but their most recent release from 2000 entitled Enslaved + Condemned is pretty metal-sounding (gothic metal). I think they should be reconsidered:

I was about to add the German band Love Like Blood, but apparently, they've been previously rejected and blacklisted. Their early stuff was gothic rock, but their most recent release from 2000 entitled Enslaved + Condemned is pretty metal-sounding (gothic metal). I think they should be reconsidered:

I submitted Water's Edge a few weeks ago and it was just rejected. Although their music contains some non metal elements I do not understand how they were not excepted. Can someone please tell me why they were rejected? Much appreciated.

I submitted Water's Edge a few weeks ago and it was just rejected. Although their music contains some non metal elements I do not understand how they were not excepted. Can someone please tell me why they were rejected? Much appreciated.

Hi! Exact Division band was rejected for the following reason: "Is the EP physical (CD, tape, etc...) or digital or both? Proof?"For now our EP digital released and we are working on prudcting it on CD. Here is complete EP compositions: http://www.lastfm.ru/music/Exact+Division

Oh, I know EPs that are 40 minutes long.But that's not the problem. Please read our rules, they say that we only accept digital releases of ~30 minutes or longer - if it were released physically then 15 minutes would be okay.

Oh, I know EPs that are 40 minutes long.But that's not the problem. Please read our rules, they say that we only accept digital releases of ~30 minutes or longer - if it were released physically then 15 minutes would be okay.

Ок, i understand. What proof of physical release do you need? Photo of CD's would be enough?

Hi, I recently submitted the band Fanticide, and it was rejected today for not being metal enough. I submitted links to where the music can be heard, and although every song isn't like "Your Betrayal", which is VERY Metal, there are still metal elements throughout the album, except the song "Denial".

I think if Ayreon is considered Metal on this site, then there is no reason why Fanticide shouldn't be considered Metal.

About a week ago, I submitted the supergroup, Palms, for consideration (the one comprising Chino Moreno and three former members of Isis) as a non-metal exception.

I am not here to protest the rejection, but merely to ask for clarification on the criteria for non-metal bands to be accepted. The last I read about it said that they are accepted "admittedly on an arbitrary basis" (or something along those lines). Neither this, nor the very trite reason of, "Nah sorry, not really a valid exception/side-project," is not useful to me when I am trying to understand your criteria.

Can I get anything more specific? It is not my prerogative to submit non-metal-but-related bands, only for them to be rejected because I have no understanding of why.

Thanks.

_________________

ThePoop wrote:

(snip)

I believe it was Confucius who said "Life is merely a series of intervals in which one waits for the next Agalloch album."

We accept some non-metal projects on two conditions. This is keeping in mind that we are, ultimately, a database of metal music and the inclusion of any non-metal is meant to be rare, exceptional, and ultimately with the purpose of adding to the vision of this encyclopedia as a comprehensive database of heavy metal music. It sounds a bit confusing, but the intent was to include some projects that are non-metal, but so intrinsically tied to heavy metal that their exclusion wouldn't "make sense" for our users.

The two conditions we accept non-metal are (1) for side-projects of notable musicians, under the criteria that the side-project was started in tandem with the artist's metal project, and ideally with the expectation that it have worldwide distribution, and (2) for some non-metal projects - like Mortiis - which have such significant listenership and presence in the metal scene that excluding them would make little to no sense.

#1 is pretty straight-forward. The non-metal project must be a side-project. So, it must have been started in tandem by an artist or multiple artists already in a metal band. It must not be the artist's primary band; their primary band must be their metal band at the time that they start the side-project. The artist(s) should be notable, which usually means that there is an expectation that people/fans within the (ideally global) metal scene would readily know them. We also tend to include such non-metal side-projects when they have worldwide distribution and/or if they have some form of historical importance to the metal scene. That's not required, per se, but it helps to make the case that including the project adds to the comprehensive nature of our database.

#2 is a little bit harder to explain, and a bit more controversial (even among staff). There are some notable bands which are not metal, but which have made a significant impact on the metal scene one way or another. In fact, in some cases, sometimes it's quite difficult to not see how they belong because people naturally associate those bands with the metal scene, and so they have become inseparable from it. This might be the case because that project has had close associations with notable metal bands or artists; that it is part of a widely recognized and historically important scene (LLN, for example), or because the band has such an influence on heavy metal's early years that it's inclusion is worth addressing (the so-called "proto-metal" bands). Our decision, long ago, was that instead of creating all sorts of "exceptional" rules to the inclusion of these bands - and thus ultimately creating restrictive and ridiculous parameters for ourselves - that we simply include these projects arbitrarily as staff. By "arbitrary" we don't mean willy-nilly. What "arbitrary" means for the staff is that we collectively scrutinize the acceptance/rejection of something, while keeping to the principles of ensuring that such a project would be a reasonable fit on a metal encyclopedia. This often means that we actively try NOT to include bands as arbitrary, special exceptions because we recognize that including non-metal in a metal encyclopedia can be counter-intuitive. In fact, for the record, most of the special exceptions we have were added many, many years ago.

So, keeping all this in mind, when the mod who rejected "Palms" judged it, they started judging it under the guidelines we follow for #1, because that'd be the most likely route that a non-metal band can be accepted. "Palms" wasn't created in tandem with a metal band; its members - while possibly notable for their work in Isis - were ex-members of Isis at the time the project was started. Moreover, it seems like they consider this project to be a main project for them, as a "succession" to Isis, and not as a side-project to a metal project. For that reason alone, "Palms" fails to be a non-metal side-project. #2 would be a bit harder to use to justify the inclusion of "Palms." Being a relatively new band, comprised of individuals who appear to want to move away from metal, it's really hard to say if it has any significant impact - or any impact - on the metal scene at all. It might have some listenership from Isis fans, but that doesn't seem to be true for most metalheads. And, besides that, there's nothing about this band that makes it exceptional. It really just appears to be another alternative/post-rock band with some former notable musicians. Because we judge very harshly on what qualifies for #2, there is no likelihood that "Palms" would've been accepted as a special exception. Sorry.

I hope that clarifies our views on things. It's not that we're trying to be unreasonable towards the inclusion of non-metal, or ridiculous and frivolous about accepting some bands and not others... we just don't feel entirely comfortable accepting non-metal on a metal encyclopedia without having really solid reasons to do so.

Do you think King Conquer could now be accepted? They've put on a new Job for a Cowboy/Lamb of God-esque sound for their new album that was released yesterday and is somewhat more technical and toned down the breakdowns. Plus they've added slams and solos.

If Suffokate can be on here then by all means, King Conquer should be as well, especially by the means of this new album.

Also, re: Suffokate: Oakland is very clearly unacceptable, and I've brought it up twice since being modded. Both times, other mods listened to their newer stuff (I refused because their first album is in the upper echelon of terrible, terrible music), and several mods have agreed that yes, they suck terribly, but their newest album is acceptable.